I know it’s unfashionable and frightfully rude to stick up for major labels these days – and goodness! I take no pleasure in doing it – but a recent post by industry litigator Gary Stiffelman on The Comet raised a number of insightful points.

Stiffelman argues for the continued usefulness (note: not essential goodness or moral worth) of major labels, making the case that while the music industry pie might be shrinking, the major labels continue to perform a necessary service that nobody else can replicate. Basically, he says that every major musical artist (measured in monetary terms) has benefited hugely from the major label model, and this is as true today as it was 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago.

He dresses it needlessly in legal jargon (“disintermediation” is just a fancy way of saying “unnecessary” – he is a  lawyer after all) so I’ve picked out the essential points. He states:

1. [T]he supposition that the internet levels the playing field and allows every aspiring artist to launch his or her own superstar career is naïve at best, and dangerous at worst.

2. I cannot think of any music superstar that came onto the scene during my 60+ year career that didn’t benefit from the efforts and money of a major label.

3. There are always exceptions to every rule, but the labels, for all of their flaws and faults, remain the only business ventures whose model is premised on providing money and resources to launch the careers of unknown musicians.

4. Any defense of the record companies is not intended as absolution for every individual situation but rather, an argument on behalf of their role in the universe generally.

5. It is perfectly understandable that, in an era in which a superstar’s latest LP can only hope to claw its way to double platinum (Lady Gaga notwithstanding), the record labels are demanding a share in the multiple business lines that their initial efforts help launch.

6. If the cost of keeping the labels alive so that they can help launch the next Eminem is that artists will have to share some of the profits they make in ancillary businesses that wouldn’t exist without the label’s initial support, then that’s a price that we should accept.

With the questionable exception of #5, all are reasonable and legitimate points supporting the conclusion that major labels will continue to play an important part in the industry’s future. While those labels may have exploited their position in the past (and they continue to do so), they remain the sole engine of growth at the top end of the industry, and anybody with an interest in seeing that aspect of popular culture continue must accept that the majors are a necessary evil.

Many would argue that the rise of  “the next Eminem” – or the next Ke$ha, Fall Out Boy or whoever else – is not necessary or desirable, but in that sense they’d be no different than any other indie-minded person of the major label era. Ke$ha is necessary in the sense that there is a clear appetite for somebody like Ke$ha, and she just happens to be the person most like Ke$ha. There will be more like her in future, and not only are major labels the best-placed but they are the only ones in position to perpetuate the structure that modern culture demands.

Sticking with Eminem, it’s generally accepted that, among musicians, rappers are almost always the shrewdest businessmen. It’s telling that, even more so than in the occasionally more meritocratic world of white-guy rock, that every major rapper on the planet has a cosy relationship with his or her major label. The music industry is full of young artists who’ve made bad decisions and signed things they shouldn’t have, but even Trent Reznor acknowledges that any musician with the ambition to make it big in the old-fashioned sense should go for a major label deal.

A recent piece on on Lil Wayne’s activities (and apparent omnipresence) during his eight-month prison sentence highlights the sheer amount of time, effort and money that is required to stay at the top – there are clear parallels between it and Elvis’ career while a soldier in Germany. That Weezy gives away so much material on mixtapes and as free-standing downloads merely complicates the picture. The fact remains that to be as big as he is, you need the marketing and distributory capabilities of a major.

Many prominent musicians – notably Reznor – have trumpeted and celebrated the demise of the major labels; some – notably Radiohead and, yes, Reznor – have struck out on their own and used the immense weight of their own popularity to support their private ventures and partnerships with independent labels. Stiffelman points out that not does this make sense, but that they owe it to themselves to do it. However that fundamental truth doesn’t nullify the indirect role played by major labels in enabling them to do it.

It’s been extensively argued, both here and elsewhere, that Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails came of age as artists under the wing of major labels during the boom period for record sales, and they would likely never have reached the same level of prominence were it not for the majors’ continued financial support. Ironically, had it not been for that major label support, those same bands might today have had little option but to enter into the same type of restrictive contract they now declare to be a relic of the past.

That’s not to suggest that either Reznor or the members of Radiohead is in any way hypocritical – each has merely recognised that his interest is better served as an independent than beholden to a major label contract. What it does suggest is a certain level of opportunism, and perhaps cynicism: opportunism to realise that they can make more money going it alone, and cynicism to know that fighting words (however shallow) are often good for business.

What it doesn’t suggest – not for the foreseeable future anyway – is that major labels are on their way out.